ArticleCureus2026
A Closed-Loop Quality Improvement Intervention to Enhance Diabetic Foot Risk Assessment Compliance at Atbara Teaching Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective Diabetic foot complications are a major cause of morbidity and preventable lower limb amputation among patients with diabetes mellitus. Despite clear international guidelines recommending routine structured foot risk assessment, adherence in hospital settings remains inconsistent. The objective of this study was to evaluate baseline compliance with diabetic foot risk assessment documentation and determine the impact of implementing a structured assessment tool and targeted staff education. Methods A closed-loop quality improvement project was conducted at Atbara Teaching Hospital. The first audit cycle (August 2025) included 50 hospitalized adult patients with diabetes mellitus. Following baseline assessment, a standardized diabetic foot risk assessment checklist was introduced with staff orientation and workflow integration over a two-month intervention period. A second prospective audit cycle (November to December 2025) assessed 50 consecutive patients using identical criteria. Compliance with guideline-recommended assessment components was compared between cycles using chi-square testing. Results Baseline documentation of key risk assessment components was low, particularly for neuropathy (8; 16%), peripheral arterial disease (3; 6%), and risk stratification (0; 0%). Following intervention, compliance improved significantly across all clinical domains, reaching 50 (100%) for neuropathy assessment, vascular assessment, risk score calculation, and follow-up planning (p < 0.001). Documentation of patient identifiers showed minimal change, except for file number recording, which declined significantly from 45 (90%) to 28 (56%) (p < 0.001). Conclusions Implementation of a structured assessment tool combined with targeted education significantly improved compliance with diabetic foot risk assessment standards. Structured quality improvement strategies represent an effective approach to bridging gaps between guideline recommendations and routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.